4 ms·
What they mean is that since another argument is shot down, they have to move the goalposts and change the definition of what they actually wanted. You show on
by bena 2y ago
What they mean is that since another argument is shot down, they have to move the goalposts and change the definition of what they actually wanted.
You show one species becoming another, they’ll complain about how it was done. Or how long it took, etc.
For instance, ring species are pretty good evidence of speciation. But that’s not good enough because all those animals exist right now.
- mdp2021 2y ago> another argument is shot down, they have to move the goalposts and change the definition of what they actually wanted Actually, a version of that is good part of the (scientific) game. Of course you have to criticize the theory, the experiments etc. Only, it has to be done in good faith - to look for the truth, not to defend a position. The difference between Newton and Bohr, and Freud and Marx (to go for classical examples), is subtle, not gross. There is an entire Science, a whole field, about that.